• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Resolved: As a general Principle, individuals have an obligation to value the common good above their own interests. Discuss.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Mark Mendez District Debate 3-9-04 Resolved: As a general Principle, individuals have an obligation to value the common good above their own interests. AFFIRMATIVE The affirmative side according to this debate is to side with the statement that individuals as a general principle must value the common good above their own interests. This debate in simpler terms is the common good versus self interests. However according to the resolution the debate can be structured in endless ways and formats. In order to clarify the side of Affirmative I offer these clarifying terms. Obligation is the duty to honor the life, liberty, or possessions of others. In John Locke's terms, "Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions. Common good is the goal of any body politic. The social compact theory of government allows individuals to band together in community, out of their state of nature, to form a body politic for their overall benefit and security. General Principal cannot be limited to a specific case. A government cannot indirectly "produce a result which it cannot command directly," (Sonnerman). ...read more.

Middle

A persons life, health, liberty, and possessions are higher benefits than being able to have unregulated individualism. An individual's loss is just if the community benefits. My second contention is that unrestrained individualism hurts individualism. a. The ideas of individual choice and decision are noble at best. The thought that ever human should be able to do whatever they want whenever they want as long as they do not harm property, life, or liberty cannot hold true. For ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For example the CEO of a large business chooses to close down its factories in America and open up new sweat shops in middle-east countries. Not only does the CEO's self interest bring cruel working conditions to women and children but also it causes Individual Americans to be out of the job. Valuing self interests justifies this because the man now makes more money. b. Unrestrained self interests cannot be justified. "Society is joint action and cooperation in which each participant sees the other partner's success as a means for the attainment of his own," (Mises) Altruism as a general principle is no longer practiced. ...read more.

Conclusion

One cannot argue that the loss of slavery did not harm self interests. Racism and a poor economy in the south both arose from the civil war conclusion. Cost benefit analysis of this proves that the gain in freedom of an entire race and culture outweighed the loss in economic stability. b. It was for the common good that all rights are given to countries citizens. The common good instills the positive aspects of self interests such as one's freedom in equilibrium with utility. Valuing the common good maximizes the amount of people in the collective who have these freedoms. In conclusion I have proven that individuals must value the common good above their own self interests in order to preserve their way of live made by collective goods, help individualism by regulating some liberties, and to allow collectivism to balance with self interest. I state that a collective is a formation of a group of individuals with similar ideals and goals. Siding with the affirmative is the most logical by considering the examples given by Harvard professors, and enlightened philosophers. Cost benefit analysis of any situation shows that the common good must be valued above an individuals own interests. Again I must urge an affirmative ballot. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Political Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Political Philosophy essays

  1. How and why does Locke explain the creation, value and protection of property?

    252) and make it our own. He then says that by people acquiring land they are not taking away land from anybody else since there is so much of it. And not only are they are not doing anything wrong they are actually doing a good thing for every one else.

  2. Deontology- a theory based purely on obligation or duty.

    The foundations for rule deontological ethics were derived from the beliefs of Kant. In summary, he tended to believe that knowledge was a direct result of the sort of "monkey see, monkey do" correlation. This relationship, in his opinion, was one in which the mind developed categories to determine the right from the wrong.

  1. Notes on John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

    though there is no elevator in the shaft, then you should feel free to use physical force to prevent my walking into the shaft and falling to my death. I suppose that if there were time it would be best for you to simply ask me if I wanted to

  2. "...the gulf between how one should live and how one does live is so ...

    resolved by setting stringent limits to princely wickedness, and in general behaving honourably towards one's subjects and allies. This is exactly what one cannot hope to do, because all men at all times 'are ungrateful, changeable, simulators and dissimulators, runaways in danger, eager for gain'..."

  1. Assess critically Marx's distinction between ideology and science

    the ruling classes and further the exploitation of the ruled, and they could not be overthrown except by a revolution from below, when the great masses of the oppressed comprehend fully the wretchedness of their state and rise against the oppressors.

  2. Russia's Political Party System as an Obstacle to Democratization

    First, Putin was the "party of power's" candidate. He had the same resources, media advantages, and regional support as the Unity Party, he conveyed much the same vague nonspecific message as Unity, and he benefited considerably from the Unity Party's victory over Primakov. Like Yeltsin, however, Putin did not run as a party candidate but remained above party competition.

  1. If the state is not a voluntary organisation, how can one be under any ...

    as in the National Health Service. Therefore a socialist might argue that she paid her National Insurance not because the law obligates her too, but because it 'fits her moral attitudes and outlook anyway'. The fact that she has no legal right to refuse to pay becomes relevant in this case only if she actually doesn't.

  2. Compare Hobbes and Locke's views on the obligation to obey the law.

    For example in an emergency the moral obligation to save a person?s life could outweigh the obligation to stop at a red light or obey the parking regulations. (c) Political obligation is a moral obligation to do X just because the law requires it, independently of whether morality requires us to do X anyway.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work